AMULYA PUHAN vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19066 of 2026
CNR No.ODHC010442382026
An application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
Amulya Puhan and others …. Petitioners
Versus
State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case :
For Petitioners : Mr. Pratyasish Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal,
Additional Standing Counsel
(for O.P. Nos.1 to 7)
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
J U D G M E N T
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
th
Date of hearing and judgment: 9 September, 2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned
Additional Standing Counsel.
The petitioners challenge the order dated 13.05.2026
passed by the Additional District Magistrate, Kalinga Nagar,
Jajpur Road, Jajpur.
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 1 of 9
2. The matter was heard at length on 25.06.2026 and
order was passed recording the submissions and legal aspects
that fall for adjudication, which is reproduced herein:
“ 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. The petitioners for reasons best known to them 73
number have stated to be members of Truck Owners’
Association, Jajpur Road have approached this
Court. On being asked why the 73 persons have
approached instead of one person in representative
capacity as per the bye law, the learned counsel for
the petitioners has no immediate answer. They
challenge the order dated 13.05.2026 passed by the
Additional District Magistrate, Kalinga Nagar, Jajpur
Road, Jajpur which indicates thus:
“This is regarding passing of orders to
resolve disputes between two Truck Owners
Associations namely Jajpur Road Truck Owner
Association and Vyasanagar Truck Owner
Association to avoid law and order situation.
A meeting was convened after due notice
issued to both the Associations, namely the
Jajpur Road Truck Owners Association and the
Vyasanagar Truck Owner Association, The
members of both associations were present
during the meeting.
The members of both the Associations have
put forth their demands.
During the course of the meeting, it was seen
that two separate resolutions/proceedings
dated 12.08.2025 and 31.03.2026 had been
passed by the Additional District Magistrate,
Kalinga Nagar to tackle the tussles between
the above-mentioned Truck Owners
Associations, to avoid law and order
situations, wherein several decisions had been
taken.
However, the Vyasanagar Truck Owners
Association had raised a grievance that the
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 2 of 9
Jajpur Road Truck Owners Association was
not renewing the vehicle registrations of its
members in the register maintained by the
Jajpur Road Truck Owners Association.
In the meeting held on 31.03.2026, the
matter was deferred for a final decision on a
later date; So, this meeting.
Accordingly, both the Associations are
present today i.e., on 13.05.2C26, and their
submissions are as follows.”
3. Since the order dated 13.05.2026 is the
administrative order by the Additional District
Magistrate, the learned counsel for the petitioner was
pointedly asked to refer to the portion of the order by
which the 73 petitioners are aggrieved.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioners are aggrieved by the first, second and
third sub-paragraphs of the observations and
decisions of the Additional District Magistrate at
page-106. Along with the first, second and third
paragraphs, the fourth and fifth paragraphs which
are the entire observations and decision are
reproduced herein:
“Upon perusal of all documents placed
before the Additional District Magistrate,
Kalinga Nagar, it is ascertained that both
associations are separately registered entities
and are functioning independently on different
occasions. They are also taking different
shares for Vyasanagar Municipality & Korai
area separately.
It is a matter of fact that once a member has
separated from one parent association and
joined another rival association, such member
cannot simultaneously continue as a member
of both the associations.
Accordingly, it is hereby ordered that to
maintain law and order situations. Both the
Associations shall henceforth function
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 3 of 9
independently and peacefully with their
respective registered members. Membership
shall be determined on the basis of registration
records, and therefore, members registered
under the Vyasanagar Truck Owners
Association need not have their vehicles
renewed under the Jajpur Road Truck Owners
Association. As both the Associations have
registration papers.
Regarding the allegations of irregularities,
corruptions, illegal activities and non-conduct
of General Body Meetings, the Additional
District Magistrate, Kalinga Nagar has no
jurisdiction to adjudicate upon such matters,
as both associations are registered under
separate registering authorities.
Accordingly, the concerned parties may
approach the appropriate registering authority
if they have any grievances needs to be
redressed.
Both the Associations are hereby directed to
maintain peace and tranquility in the region.”
5. In considered opinion of this Court, none of the
observation and decision of the Additional District
Magistrate is against the petitioners rather the
administrative decision is for achieving peace and
tranquility in the region as observed by the
administrative authority. In considered view of this
Court, in judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the satisfaction of the authority
cannot be looked into.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioners
submits that the petitioners take exception to the
fifth sub-paragraph of the order dated 13.05.2026 at
Annexure-9 which reads thus:
“However, the Vyasanagar Truck Owners
Association had raised a grievance that the
Jajpur Road Truck Owners Association was
not renewing the vehicle registrations of its
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 4 of 9
members in the register maintained by the
Jajpur Road Truck Owners Association.”
7. Having gone through the said paragraphs, there is
nothing to show that the petitioners can be aggrieved
as it is a statement of facts alleged by the parties
before the administrative authority. Certain others
submissions have been made by the learned counsel
for the petitioners that the present petitioners have
formed a trade union due to which they have been
barred to re-register their vehicles under the society-
opposite party no.8. Regarding the same, it is
apparent upon perusal of the representation of the
petitioners at Annexure-8 dated 05.02.2026 was not
the subject matter before the Additional District
Magistrate.
8. This Court does not express any opinion if the
petitioners can avail any remedy, if so advised under
the provisions of law.
9. As a last submissions, learned counsel for the
petitioners wants adjournment which is granted
reluctantly.
The matter shall be listed for fresh admission in the
week commencing 20.07.2026. ”
3. Thereafter, upon change of determination, the matter
was placed before the coordinate Bench. The coordinate
Bench by order dated 17.08.2026 considering the order dated
25.06.2026 observed that the matter to be placed before
Hon’ble the Chief Justice for assignment. Thereafter, by the
Hon’ble the Chief Justice by order dated 21.08.2026 in the
Administrative side has been pleased to assign the matter to
this Bench and accordingly, the matter is listed and taken up
for consideration.
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 5 of 9
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioners reiterated his
submissions as were noted in the order dated 25.06.2026
which were considered by the said order and have been taken
note of.
Today, reiterating his submissions, it is submitted that
the Trade Union, Vyasanagar Truck Owners Association and
the Society Jajpur Road Truck Owners Association are not
rival associations.
5 . Having gone through the order impugned as at
Annexure-9, this Court is of the considered opinion that issue
that fell for adjudication by the Additional District Magistrate
was not the nature of registration of both the association but
the adjudication was in the context of maintaining peace
between the truck owners and the associations.
6 . A Division Bench of this Court in Bombay Intelligence
Security (India) Ltd. v. Union of India & others; (AIR 2022
Ori 197: 2022 (III) ILR-CUT-34) : W.P.(C) No.29177 of 2021
decided on 26.08.2022 had the occasion to deal with scope of
judicial review of administrative order/action. Paragraph-23 of
the decision in Bombay Intelligence Security (India) Ltd.
( supra ) is apt to be relied on for present adjudication and is
reproduced herein:
“23. Apart from the above decisions cited at the bar, it
would be apt to refer to certain other judicial
pronouncements those are regarded as Locus
Classicus on the scope of judicial review of
administrative action.
In Chief Constable of the North Wales Police
v. Evans: 1982(1) WLR 1155; (1982)3 All E R 141
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 6 of 9
(HL) : pp 1160H-1161A, 1173F 1174F-G of WLR, it was
held by the House of Lords “judicial review, as the
words imply, is not an appeal from a decision, but a
review of the manner in which the decision was
made”. “…..judicial review is concerned, not with the
decision, but with the decision-making process”
Lord Hailsham in his separate yet concurring
opinion observed (pp.1160E-H -1161-A of WLR):
“The first observation I wish to make is by way
of criticism of some remarks of Lord Denning M.R.
which seem to me capable of an erroneous
construction of Rules of the Supreme Court: the
rules which governed civil procedure in the
Supreme Court of Judicature of England and
Wales from its formation in 1883 until 1999. The
purpose of the remedy by way of judicial review
under R.S.C., Ord. 53. This remedy, vastly
increased in extent, and rendered, over a long
period in recent years, of infinitely more
convenient access than that provided by the old
prerogative writs and actions for a declaration, is
intended to protect the individual against the
abuse of power by a wide range of authorities,
judicial, quasi-judicial, and, as would originally
have been thought when I first practiced at the
Bar, administrative. It is not intended to take
away from those authorities the powers and
discretions properly vested in them by law and to
substitute the courts as the bodies making the
decisions. It is intended to see that the relevant
authorities use their powers in a proper manner.
(emphasis supplied)
Since the range of authorities, and the
circumstances of the use of their power, are
almost infinitely various, it is of course unwise to
lay down rules for the application of the remedy
which appear to be of universal validity in every
type of case. But it is important to remember in
every case that the purpose of the remedies is to
ensure that the individual is given fair treatment
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 7 of 9
by the authority to which he has been subjected
and that it is no part of that purpose to substitute
the opinion of the judiciary or of individual judges
for that of the authority constituted by law to
decide the matters in question. The function of
the court is to see that lawful authority is not
abused by unfair treatment and not to attempt
itself the task entrusted to that authority by the
law. There are passages in the judgment of Lord
Denning M.R. (and perhaps in the other
judgments of the Court of Appeal) in the instant
case and quoted by my noble and learned friend
which might be read as giving the courts carte
blanche to review the decision of the authority on
the basis of what the courts themselves consider
fair and reasonable on the merits. I am not sure
whether the Master of the Rolls really intended
his remarks to be construed in such a way as to
permit the court to examine, as for instance in the
present case, the reasoning of the subordinate
authority with a view to substituting its own
opinion. If so, I do not think this is a correct
statement of principle. The purpose of judicial
review is to ensure that the individual receives
fair treatment, and not to ensure that the
authority, after according fair treatment, reaches
on a matter which it is authorized by law to
decide for itself a conclusion which is correct in
the eyes of the court.
(Emphasis supplied)
Lord Brightman in his opinion (which was
agreed to by the majority) observed as follows :
Judicial review is concerned, not with the
decision, but with the decision-making process.
Unless that restriction on the power of the court
is observed, the court will in my view, under the
guise of preventing the abuse of power, be itself
guilty of usurping power.
(pp.1173-F of WLR)
(Emphasis Supplied)
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 8 of 9
There is however a wider point than the
injustice of the decision-making process of the
chief constable. With profound respect to the
Court of Appeal, I dissent from the view that “
Not only must [the probationer constable] be
given a fair hearing, but the decision itself must
be fair and reasonable.” If that statement of the
law passed into authority without comment, it
would in my opinion transform, and wrongly
transform, the remedy of judicial review. Judicial
review, as the words imply, is not an appeal from
a decision, but a review of the manner in which
the decision was made.”
(pp. 11874-F, G of WLR)
(Emphasis supplied)
7 . The reasons considered by the Additional District
Magistrate cannot be relooked as if this Court is sitting in
appeal over the said decision.
This Court expresses no opinion whether owners of truck
can form a ‘trade union’ to invite and accept membership
amongst owners of trucks.
8 . In view of the discussions noted in the earlier order dated
25.06.2026 and the discussions made above, the writ petition
is dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. However, as observed earlier, it is again reiterated that
the petitioners can avail any remedy, if so advised, available
under the provisions of law.
(Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
The 9 September, 2026/Jyostna
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOSTNARANI MAJHEE
Reason: Authentication
Location: OHC
Date: 09-Sep-2026 17:30:44
W.P. (C) No.19066 of 2026
Page 9 of 9